Tenantcheck Insights · Case study
Tenancy Tribunal case 5313999 — Exemplary damages at 43 St Leonards Road, Kelston, Auckland 0602
Published 4 February 2026 · Application 5313999
Tenant favoured
- Exemplary damages
At a glance
Key facts from the published tribunal order.
Outcome
Tenant favoured
From published order
Location
Auckland
Tribunal region
Adjudicator
C Lamdin
Dispute themes
Award balance
Gross awards, any bond applied per the order, and the remaining balance payable.
- Gross award
- $2,278.00
- Total balance for Landlord to pay Tenant
- $2,278.00
Claims & awards
What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.
| Claim | Landlord | Tenant | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exemplary damages: Section 45 | $1,500.00 | Section 45 | |
| Exemplary damages: Breach quiet enjoyment | $750.00 | Breach quiet enjoyment | |
| Filing fee reimbursement | $28.00 | Filing fee reimbursement | |
| Net award | $2,278.00 | ||
| Total payable by Landlord to Tenant | $2,278.00 |
Claims and awards for application 5313999 — net $2,278.00 NZD. Verify on MoJ.
Exemplary damages: Section 45
- Amount
- $1,500.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Section 45
Exemplary damages: Breach quiet enjoyment
- Amount
- $750.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Breach quiet enjoyment
Filing fee reimbursement
- Amount
- $28.00
- Awarded to
- Tenant
- Reason
- Filing fee reimbursement
Net award
Tenant $2,278.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant
Tenant $2,278.00
Claim types — money lines allowed on this order
Order
- The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be completed by Friday 13 March 2025: a. Replace the following fence with a new fence: i. The fence bordering 43 Saint Leonard’s Road and 43A Saint Leonard’s Road, starting from the small fence between 43 Saint Leonard’s Road and 43A Saint Leonard’s Road, along to the back fence bordering 7 Rerewai Place. ii. The fence bordering 43 Saint Leonard’s Road with both 7 Rerewai Place and 9 Rerewai Place. iii. The fence bordering 43 Saint Leonard’s Road and 41 Saint Leonard’s Road, starting from the back of the house on 43 Saint Leonard’s Road along to 9 Rerewai Place. b. The purpose of this repair is to create a fully enclosed backyard with gates as necessary. All fences and gates must be built so as to create this fully enclosed backyard. c. Repair all rotten decking and deck structure (without substantially reducing the size of the deck) on the deck on the side of the house next to the border with 41 Saint Leonard’s Road, Kelston.
- As an alternative to compliance with Order 2, the landlord must pay the tenant $10,000.00 immediately.
- If the landlord fails to comply with either Order 2 or 3 above, then the tenant may undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of this work up to $10,000.00. These costs may be set off against rent payable.
- Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Urban Lynx International Ltd Jaspreet Kaur must pay Korinne Jessica Hale, Catrina Maree Bregmen and Lani Hale $2,278.00 immediately, as set out in the table below.
Reasons
- Both parties attended the hearing. The tenants were represented by Ms Bregman with Ms Hale in support. Ms Kaur appeared for the landlord.
- The parties agreed this tenancy began on 22 August 2019 and is current. Healthy Homes Standards, moisture ingress and drainage
- Korinne Jessica Hale, Catrina Maree Bregmen and Lani Hale (“the tenants”) claim the landlord has breached the landlord’s obligations under section 45(1)(bb) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), which requires compliance with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS). The tenants consider that the landlord has failed to comply with the HHS moisture ingress and drainage standard.
- The moisture ingress and drainage standard requires that buildings comprising residential tenancies must have efficient systems to drain storm water, surface water and ground water, and that includes gutters, downpipes and drains.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) RTA.
- The tenant said in the last year there have been three leaks at the premises.
- The first leak was in the hall by the backdoor. The tenant said when they moved into the property in 2019, they were advised to keep an eye on the area as leaks had been fixed here on two previous occasions. The tenants said this area has leaked four times since they moved in.
- The most recent leak is the only leak I am addressing in this application. The tenants said it occurred on Sunday 26 January 2025. The tenants noticed water dripping through the ceiling and pooling on the floor. On the same day they contacted their property manager. On the following day, the ceiling gave way causing a large hole.
- The landlord said the leak was fixed on 18 February 2025, but the tenants were advised to keep an eye on it.
- The tenants said the “fix” of 18 February 2025 consisted of applying a silicon sealant to the roof. On the next big rain event a couple of weeks later, the roof continued to leak. The tenants said that after this, the landlord repaired the leak with roofing iron. The leak was fixed by 31 March 2025, and the ceiling was then repaired by 2 April 2025.
- The landlord agreed with the tenant’s timeline regarding repairs.
- I am persuaded the landlord was in breach of their obligation under HHS to prevent moisture ingress. The breach occurred on the day the leak began. It took the landlord a little over two months to fully repair the leak and damage caused by it.
- I find Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Urban Lynx International Ltd Jaspreet Kaur committed an unlawful act with regard to this leak.
- The second leak occurred on Friday 18 April 2025 when the tenants noticed a puddle of water on the stairs. They traced the leak up to a cupboard and then up through the cupboard to the ceiling. In the cupboard personal belongings including photographs had been damaged, and other belongings had become wet.
- The tenants advised the landlord on this day, but didn’t expect an immediate response as it was Good Friday.
- The tenants followed up with the landlord a week later on Thursday 24 April 2025.
- The landlord said that delays occurred because the tenant was not always available, and because the landlord did not want to enter the premises when the tenant was not home.
- The tenant said she never said the repairmen could not attend, but she did keep the landlord aware of when she would be home.
- Section 48(2)(d) of the RTA sets out when a landlord may enter to conduct repairs. This clause reads: 2)The landlord may enter the premises— (d)for the purpose of carrying out necessary repairs to or necessary maintenance of, the premises, at any time between 8 o’clock in the morning and 7 o’clock in the evening of any day, after giving to the tenant notice of the intended entry and the reason for it at least 24 hours before the intended entry; or
- Where repairs and maintenance are necessary, a landlord has an obligation to repair them in a timely manner.
- I am not persuaded by the landlord saying that they were having difficulty getting access to the property because of the tenants’ conduct. The RTA makes it clear the landlord need only give 24 hours to enter for necessary repairs or maintenance. All parties are expected to know the law, and professional companies particularly so, especially when it comes to necessary maintenance of a property.
- The landlord also said that they had not been able to access the property because for a time the key to the property had been misplaced in the office.
- The tenants said that this was a concern for them from a security perspective, as the one key opened all the outside doors for their property. They also said they believed the owner had a key to the premises.
- The leak was fixed on 21 May 2025, 29 days later.
- I find Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Urban Lynx International Ltd Jaspreet Kaur committed an unlawful act with regard to this leak.
- The third leak was discovered when the circuit breaker to the kitchen started tripping on 4 June 2025. The tenants became aware of this happening when the butler’s-pantry light went out. The tenants advised the property manager who sent an electrician the next day. The electrician noticed the light socket had water in it that was coming from a leak in the roof. For safety reasons, the electrician declined to do any electrical work until the leak was fixed.
- The tenants said the roof leak was fixed by 30 June 2025 and the butler’s- pantry light was then fixed on 18 July 2025.
- The landlord’s information agreed with this timeline.
- Because of this, the tenants were without a light in the butler’s-pantry for six weeks, during which the tenants used a torch whenever they wanted to enter this room.
- The tenants said the leak came from the roof, through the ceiling and down a wall that divided the butler’s pantry and the dining room. Because of the leak the gib-board on the dining room side of the wall has deteriorated and is falling away from the wall into the dining room.
- I find Oaks Property Management Limited As Agent For Urban Lynx International Ltd Jaspreet Kaur committed an unlawful act with regard to this leak.
- Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interest of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
- The tenants showed photographs of the corrugated iron roofing that has come off the roof which show areas where there are joins, to be completely rusted away. The tenants also provided photographs which show a large hole in the ceiling from the first leak, a puddle of water on the stairs, and repairs to the roof done with sticky-tape.
- The tenants said every time there is a significant weather event, another leak occurs in their roof.
- On the tenants’ evidence, the repairs to the roof have at times been nothing short of shoddy. The landlord today described the first leak as two events; the first being the initial leak which was fixed with silicon, and then a second new event when this fix failed next time it rained.
- I do not accept the first leak amounts to two events. In my view this leak was one event that was poorly fixed the first five times – once on this occasion and on the four previous occasions that this claim does not cover. The tenants’ evidence is that the roof suffered leaks prior to their tenancy starting in 2019, and it has been a constant problem throughout this tenancy. It is probable that the entire roof is in need of replacing, in which case one could look at all of the leaks as a single event that began before this tenancy and has been addressed in a piecemeal fashion.
- Keeping a premises watertight is a basic requirement under the HHS.
- Considering the above factors, I have determined that an award for exemplary damages is warranted. I have taken into account the number of leaks, the amount of time it has taken to fix them, the impact this has had on the tenants, the amount of time this has been going on, and also the fact that there are still outstanding issues such as the dining room wall falling in. Fail to Maintain
- The tenants claim the landlord has breached their obligations under section 45 of the RTA.
- Under section 45(1)(b), a landlord must provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair.
- Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $7,200.00. See section 45(1A) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- The tenants said the fences at the property are rotten and falling down.
- An aerial photograph of the property is available on Google Maps, and if looking at this photograph, the tenants’ property is bordered by number 43a Saint Leonard’s Road on the left, 41 Saint Leonard’s Road on the right, and 7 and 9 Rerewai Place at the back. The fences the tenants are referring to include the fences on these three sides of the property, plus a fence on the side of the carport.
- The tenants said they have raised issues about the fence on numerous occasions with the landlord, but the only repairs that have been done are piecemeal, consisting of posts that are not concreted into the ground, supports set at a 45 degree angle against the fence, and pieces of wood that are attached horizontally to the fence palings.
- The tenants produced photographs which as well as showing the above, also show palings missing, palings and posts that are broken, and the fence to be unstable and falling away in sections.
- The tenants said they have a right to expect the fence to be maintained, and they are motivated partly by the fact that they have two young children whose safety is a concern to them.
- The landlord said the owner has attempted to engage with the neighbours of which there are four, to have the fences replaced, but his efforts had been unsuccessful. The landlord showed photographs that show sections of the fence that appear to be intact.
- The tenants rejected these photographs as showing the fence to be in good condition. The tenants said that if one were to push even this “good” section of the fence, it would sway and wobble for its entire length.
- I am satisfied by the information before me that the fence is no longer fit for purpose and does need replacing.
- This claim is proved.
- I am sympathetic with the landlord’s predicament in that it is reasonable to expect neighbours to contribute to the costs of a common fence and this is difficult to organise. However, the lack of contribution by the neighbours does not affect a tenant’s right to have the property they are renting, maintained. The landlord has available to him other means to resolve issues of contribution by the neighbours.
- The tenants said the decking on the main deck is also rotting. The tenants produced photographs which show the decking to be pulling away from the deck’s structure, and causing nails to become exposed. The tenants said the loose decking is in itself a hazard.
- The tenants provided photographs in support.
- The landlord accepted the condition of the deck as the tenants presented it.
- This claim is proved.
- In failing to maintain the fences and the deck, I find the landlord has committed an unlawful act. However, because I am issuing a work order to have the fences and the deck repaired, I am declining to make an award of exemplary damages against the landlord.
- Where the Tribunal finds the landlord has failed to comply with their obligations under section 45(1)(b) RTA, it may make an order for the landlord to carry out the work to bring it up to standard. See section 78(1)(e) RTA.
- If the work order is not being made by consent of both parties, the Tribunal must also make a monetary order as an alternative to compliance with the work order.
- A work order may also authorise the tenant to undertake the work and charge the landlord the costs of doing the work, if the landlord should fail to comply with the work order and alternative monetary order. A monetary limit must be imposed by the Tribunal on the amount of costs that can be charged. These costs can be set off by the tenant against rent payable. See sections 78(2AAB) and 78(2AAC)(b) RTA. Breach of Quiet Enjoyment
- The tenants claim the landlord has harassed them.
- A landlord must not interfere with the reasonable peace, comfort or privacy of the tenant in their use of the premises. See section 38(2) RTA.
- Breaching this obligation in circumstances that amount to harassment is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $3,000.00. See section 38(3) and Schedule 1A RTA.
- Harassment means "to trouble, worry or distress" or "to wear out, tire, or exhaust" and "indicates a particular pattern of behaviour directed towards another person". MacDonald v Dodds, CIV-2009-019-001524, DC Hamilton, 26 February 2010.
- The tenants say the landlord has breached their quiet enjoyment by allowing the owner “Stephen” and his head tradesman “George” and tradespeople to continually contact them in person whenever work was to be done on the property.
- The tenants say this conduct has been exacerbated by the landlord’s refusal to address problems with the property in a professional way. For example, the tenants said that the roof was in poor condition and every time it rained heavily a new leak appeared, or reappeared. This meant that because the problem with the roof was not seen as one problem but many little problems appearing over a long period of time, the owner and his tradespeople had to contact the tenants on a regular basis.
- The tenants said they had never given permission to any property manager to release their phone number to the owner or any tradespeople. Moreover, in early 2025 the tenants had asked the then property manager “Ellie” to tell the owner and his tradespeople to stop contacting them in person, and to arrange all maintenance through the property manager instead.
- The owner and the tradespeople continued to contact the tenants in person.
- When Ms Kaur took over as property manager in April 2025, the tenants again asked her to tell the owner and his tradespeople to stop contacting them in person. These repeated requests have not changed the behaviour of “Stephen” or “George” or the tradespeople.
- The tenants said that in the last year Stephen and George have contacted the tenants personally by text or phone six to eight times each. The roofer also contacted them at least three times. This amounts to approximately 18 contacts in the last year, despite the tenants’ requests not to, and this is on top of legitimate contacts by the property managers.
- The tenants said the calls from Stephen or George or the tradespeople would usually request short notice access to the property with the tenants present, which was not possible due to busy work and study commitments.
- The tenants said that on occasion, the landlord’s lead tradesperson George had threatened the tenants that he will tell the owner to “take it off the market” meaning “give notice to end the tenancy” to the tenants, if it is too difficult to make arrangements with the tenants.
- In Tenant v Landlord [2023] NZTT4500920, the Tribunal addressed a claim for Breach of Quiet Enjoyment where the landlord had referred tradespeople to the tenants to organise. The Tribunal found that the landlord giving out the tenant’s personal phone number was a breach of her quiet enjoyment, but that the extent of the breach did not constitute harassment because the landlord did not intend to distress or wear out the tenant.
- At paragraphs 79, 81 and 82 the Tribunal found the following:
- “I am satisfied that the landlord breached the tenant’s quiet enjoyment by providing her personal details (telephone number) to tradespeople when the tenant had made it clear that she did not want this to occur.” ...
- “Whilst I consider this a breach of the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. I do not consider that the nature and extent of the breach constitutes harassment. I say this because whilst the tenant may have felt distressed and worn out by the breach, I do not consider that that was the landlord’s intention. I consider the landlord was motivated by convenience to themselves rather than a nefarious intent towards the tenant.”
- “I consider an award of compensation to be an appropriate remedy for the landlord’s breach. Taking into account the nature and extent of the breach I award the tenant $600.00 for this breach.”
- Previous Tribunal decisions are persuasive on subsequent Tribunal decisions, but they are not binding.
- In this case I am persuaded that the landlord’s conduct in having the owner, the head tradesperson and tradespeople contact the tenants directly, when the tenants have made it clear they want to be dealing only with the property manager, is a breach of their quiet enjoyment.
- I consider it aggravating that these people have access to, and/or have not now desisted in using the tenants’ personal information, that is, their telephone numbers. This amounts to a breach of their privacy.
- In determining this I note that the facts of this case differ from the case of Tenant v Landlord above in that this situation has persevered for more than a year and despite the tenants withdrawing consent for the owner, the head tradesperson and tradespeople to use their personal numbers. Because of this I consider this breach much more serious than that of the case mentioned above.
- I determine the landlord has at the very least been reckless as to whether their actions will “wear out, tire or exhaust” the tenants. I am persuaded by the tenants that they are worn out, tired and exhausted by the ongoing contact by the landlord and the ongoing problems with the leaks and fence at this tenancy.
- The tenant has a right to expect problems will be dealt with in a professional way, and that there will be finality regarding these problems. It is unreasonable for a landlord to expect a tenant to be continually inconvenienced by the same maintenance issues.
- I therefore determine the landlord had committed an unlawful act in breaching the tenants’ quiet enjoyment and for the above reasons I consider an award of exemplary damages is justified having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest. See section 109(3) RTA.
- Because Korinne Jessica Hale, Catrina Maree Bregmen, Lani Hale has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee.
Topics & place
Topics are dispute themes across the order (not the same as claim-type money lines).
Residential Tenancies Act sections
s109(3), s38(2), s38(3), s45, s45(1), s45(1A), s48(2), s78(1), s78(2AAB), s79
Key findings
- Dispute theme: exemplary damages
Property management
Frequently asked questions
Common questions about this Tenancy Tribunal case.
What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 5313999?
The tribunal order states: The landlord must carry out the following work to the premises, which must be
How much money was awarded in case 5313999?
Property Damage: $750.00 awarded to tenant; Property Damage: $1,500.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to tenant
What type of tenancy dispute was case 5313999?
The primary dispute was Exemplary damages.
Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5313999?
The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13063290-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.